User Polls By Category

User Polls By Date

Should Bill Clinton take the reins of the Democratic party?

Bill Clinton is baffled. The former president's friends say he is in disbelief that in the closing weeks of the midterm campaigns Democrats have failed to articulate a coherent message on the economy and, worse, have allowed themselves to become "human pinatas."

So Clinton is deploying himself on a last-ditch, dawn-to-dusk sprint to rescue his beleaguered party. And as the only president in modern times who has balanced the federal budget, he is leveraging his credibility to become one of the most fierce defenders of President Obama's economic policies. Read the full story.

Comments

Clinton should go write in his memoirs that his presidency undermined the Constitution, then go jump in a swimming pool while fully clothed.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | October 22, 2010 1:01 AM

This is another false argument that the media is pushing. Bill Clinton of NAFTA and DADT is not needed.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | October 22, 2010 6:23 AM

This is another false argument that the media is pushing. Bill Clinton of NAFTA and DADT is not needed.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | October 22, 2010 6:25 AM

NOPE,No Way will the desperate Obamabot Democrats be helped by trotting out old fool has been Mr Loose Zipper Boy Bill Clinton not after his cigar tricks with that White House Intern Monica that led to
Bill Clinton's own Impeachment,and in fact
it only only serve to remind voters of what
a bunch of immoral,corrupt,degenerates and
incompetent twisted freaks the Democrats
are no matter if the name is Bill Clinton
or Barack Hussein Obama or Nancy Pelosi or
senile old Dingy Harry Reid and give one
more reason to vote every incumbent Democrat Out in 2010,2012 and 2014! And I
bet Hillary Clinton will never get a shot
at being President either here now then.

Posted by: sandy5274 | October 22, 2010 6:45 AM

Would we have had George Bush II if not for Clinton, I think not! His Compass has always been very flawed. Not a judgement but a bigtime observation.

Posted by: teamsimple | October 22, 2010 7:18 AM

America has largely maintained a two party system since its inception when we had the Federalists and the anti-federalists. Personally, I find some common ground with each party and vehemently disagree with some positions of both parties. Focusing on the party rather than the person is wrong. Were Gore and Bush the best this nation had to offer at that point in time. God save us if that were the case. I am proud our country has overcome some if its racial prejudices and that it no longer serves for one of our national parties to play the southern strategy (i.e., the bigot card) to garner votes. Unfortunately Obama has not provided the leadership we need. The concentration of wealth in this country stands at a point not experienced since prior to the Great Depression. Yet Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy. Democrats pushed through a Cap and Trade bill that does nothing but cost working families money they can ill afford. (The true villain in global warming lies in our food chain and not in energy production. Read: Food for a Hot Planet.) We need politicians to focus on solving the countries problems, not simply striving to win reelection. Bill Clinton was the best leader to serve this country since FDR. Certainly let him guide the Democratic Party.

Posted by: FrankSmith123 | October 22, 2010 9:37 AM

Team Simple-

that is an interesting read of history. The 1990s are spent by the repugs accusing the Clintons of everything (extortion, blackmail, murder- Foster and Brown, remember?) and preventing them from leading as they were ELECTED to do. This makes him unpopular only with the "Moral Values" wing of the party- Joe Leiberman et al.

Gore gets some horrific advice from campaign manager Donna Brazille- orange make up for a debate, running away from issues- not allowing Clinton with 60+% popularity to campaign for him in Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia- any one of which would have WON HIM THE PRESIDENCY. He still wins the popular vote and likely the electoral vote, but has the brother of the other candidate steal votes so that Florida goes the other way. When it reaches the supreme court, it is a court dominated by appointees who came in under the other candidates father- so they throw out the case and W becomes president.

I don't see where Clinton is responsible for W.

Posted by: NYClefty | October 22, 2010 10:17 AM

Clinton should go write in his memoirs that his presidency undermined the Constitution, then go jump in a swimming pool while fully clothed.
Posted by: RealTexan1 | October 22, 2010 1:01 AM
HahHa that coming from someone who probably loved the idiot W

Posted by: lildg54 | October 22, 2010 10:22 AM

To the Post Opinion Poll Writers: Seems like there is loaded language embedded in the "NO" choice for this poll question. The Juan Williams question has a simple Yes-No choice. Sleazy or Sloppy? Do you have to agree with the predicate to Vote NO?

Posted by: genniewinkler | October 22, 2010 11:30 AM

Option 3: I'm not trying to figure out ways to HELP the Democrats. Puh-leez!

Posted by: forgetthis | October 22, 2010 11:57 AM

3) No. Democratic leadership stinks enough already.

Posted by: jdadson | October 22, 2010 12:02 PM

I never, ever do this kind of poll thing. This is different. Go Bill.

Posted by: jato11 | October 22, 2010 12:32 PM

It's telling that 75% think the Democrats have no leadership, especially in the WaPost.

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | October 22, 2010 12:47 PM

This is an absurd choice. Clinton and Obama both stand for the same democratic principles, and the more strong, articulate voices on the campaign trail, the better. It's not one or the other! Geez.

Posted by: husimon | October 22, 2010 1:29 PM

Clinton and Obama
They would make a great Team.

ISA

Posted by: vettesport | October 22, 2010 2:27 PM

Funny how 75% choose “yes” in the poll and 80% scream no in the comments. Is it more you know less you talk or is it less you know louder you shout?!

Okay its both.

Posted by: Shiveh | October 22, 2010 3:47 PM

This is a great article--a couple of days ago I saw Clinton give a magnificent campaign speech here in Colorado. The speech Obama should have given. The following is a bare-bones summary of just a couple of points--not doing him justice as his speech was flawlessly logical and unbelievably well-written:

Clinton described the mood of the country--angry, full of despair, hardly recovered from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The right seeks to capitalize on how America's hurting by convincing us that any change will bring relief. But Republicans and Tea Baggers aren't talking issues because if they did, they would have to comment on solutions. By their silence and complete lack of specifics, they hope to make this election into a referendum. Instead, it's a CHOICE.

And if voters again realize they are allowed a CHOICE, they must look at candidates and solutions specifically. Which candidates, which party, will take us where we need to go? Which candidates, which party, are currently bringing us jobs? Why is the economy gradually repairing the tremendous damage we just underwent--the worst recession since the Great Depression? And which party, which candidates want to FURTHER education, which is the only frigging way we can repair the decade just wasted, and actually move into the 21st century? Which party, which candidates want to take health care further? Where we didn't exactly get a lot--but we did get insurers limited to having to spend 85% of their premiums on gasp, our health. And our kids get insurance to age 26, no kid is excluded based on pre-existing conditions, and all kids are insured.

Clinton pointed out the far right is bringing up issues that have not seriously been considered for a century. That are so inappropriate for where we need to be going that they could destroy this country.

Bottom line, one party will complete the job. The other will allow us to drown. Again.

Clinton's speech is the message on which all of our Democratic candidates should have posited this election. The speech a leader should give.

This is the long way of saying that hell, yes, he should be in charge of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: busterbrownthefirst | October 22, 2010 4:17 PM

If Clinton wants it, I say give it to him.

Although he's a great guy and was a good governor, and I'm sure Obama owed him a favor or two, but the fact is, the DNC has been in freefall ever since Tim Kaine took the reigns.

I'm not saying he's responsible, but he also doesn't seem to be able to turn things around, either.

Posted by: ethanquern | October 22, 2010 6:34 PM

Yes he should. Dems would vote for a guy who loses the nuclear missile codes!

Posted by: bobilly2 | October 22, 2010 9:36 PM

Clinton is impeached and lucky to have his head after treason AND LIES....
Of course the Pernicious Dems love him... all of our stimulous went to the convicted and dead.

Posted by: dottydo | October 22, 2010 11:12 PM

Why not? Somebody should.

Posted by: glabroushead | October 22, 2010 11:59 PM

Although the combination GOP + Tea Parties are caught up in precelebrations and the death of the big D Democrats, the truth is that its the other way around. By 2030 the USA will be a majority non-white population - end of story! They (Republicans)can't tolerate a black president now and they most certainly will not tolerate a less than white face for their party in the future. Are you reading the writing on the wall? It makes no difference if Bill Clinton leads the Democrats or if Obama suddenly finds his power, any Republican majority is a temporary thing at best. You move left, find some way to be more inclusive or you fade into history. And Bill Clinton will still be recognized as one of our finest Presidents.

Posted by: BlueDog3 | October 23, 2010 1:19 AM

October 23,2010
Ilove Bill and Hillary Clinton- Iwanted Hillary to be president- then Iwanted her to at least be Vice President- She can fix our country with Bills help. Istill want her to be president- Our current president has good ideas but he is not experienced and we need Hillary.